[Patrick Hodgdon]

Playing at 8:50am with a friend, looks like the other two spots are still open if anyone is in town or nearby and wants to play.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,


Two friends of mine just returned from playing Pasatiempo.


I had spoken in glowing terms about the course and arranged for them to play there.


Their comment upon returning was that it exceeded their expectations.


They raved about the course.


If I was within an hour's drive, I'd join you.


I think it's a great golf course and certainly a great golf course that's readily accessible to all.


Have a terrific time and report back to us.

[J_ Crisham]

Played again at Pasatiempo last Weds and I agree that it is just outstanding. Greens were punched about 10 days ago and yet they have recovered nicely. Arguably the best collective set of par 3's in California. The only weak holes are #6 and 17.  So much for the California drought- it was almost lush. In fact  at SFGC, Cal Club, Olympic, and The Meadow Club  each course looked very healthy.

[Bill_McBride]

Played again at Pasatiempo last Weds and I agree that it is just outstanding. Greens were punched about 10 days ago and yet they have recovered nicely. Arguably the best collective set of par 3's in California. The only weak holes are #6 and 17.  So much for the California drought- it was almost lush. In fact  at SFGC, Cal Club, Olympic, and The Meadow Club  each course looked very healthy.

Next time you see Shivas ask him how easy he thinks the 17th is!    The slope of that green is subtle but much more than is apparent.   And the recent addition to the depth of the green makes club selection tricky. 

[Josh Tarble]

Bill,
I agree.  The 17th is severely underrated.  But how could it not be with that back 9?!   I don't think there is a hole worst than above average on the entire back.

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,
I agree.  The 17th is severely underrated.  But how could it not be with that back 9?!   I don't think there is a hole worst than above average on the entire back.

Agree.  It's the kind of hole where you hit a couple of decent shots and walk off the green wondering how the hell you made six!

[Kalen Braley]

Jack,
 
Did you mean #7?  I thought #6 had a great tee shot and an interesting layup, even if the approach was a bit tight.
 
#7 thou, not a big fan of at all.  Super narrow, very penal. 

[J_ Crisham]

Jack,
 
Did you mean #7?  I thought #6 had a great tee shot and an interesting layup, even if the approach was a bit tight.
 
#7 thou, not a big fan of at all.  Super narrow, very penal.

Kalen,    #6 is the one that doesn't fit for me- you are correct regarding the tee shot but after that its a 175 layup to about 80-90 yds. The green is pretty good but all of the greens are good to great at Pasa. #7 is a terrific short par4 . You must hit a precise tee shot and a very good wedge or 9 iron. The  bunkering greenside on 7 is as good as any on the course. I would be in favor of some tree removal on either side of the fairway but players on 6 and 8 might get drilled. I'm probably nit picking here- Pasa is so underated- one of my playing partners from Oakmont thought the greens and par 3's were as good as any he had seen. Keep in mind we had played SFGC, Olympic, Cal Club, Meadow earlier in the week- that is high praise indeed.

[Jim Hoak]

I don't care for #6, 7 or 8.  #6 is wrecked by the netting along the left side and a poor green complex.  #7 is like a bowling alley with the large trees on both sides.  And #8 green is silly with its slopes.
The other 15 holes are wonderful!

[Kalen Braley]

Jack,
 
Did you mean #7?  I thought #6 had a great tee shot and an interesting layup, even if the approach was a bit tight.
 
#7 thou, not a big fan of at all.  Super narrow, very penal.

Kalen,    #6 is the one that doesn't fit for me- you are correct regarding the tee shot but after that its a 175 layup to about 80-90 yds. The green is pretty good but all of the greens are good to great at Pasa. #7 is a terrific short par4 . You must hit a precise tee shot and a very good wedge or 9 iron. The  bunkering greenside on 7 is as good as any on the course. I would be in favor of some tree removal on either side of the fairway but players on 6 and 8 might get drilled. I'm probably nit picking here- Pasa is so underated- one of my playing partners from Oakmont thought the greens and par 3's were as good as any he had seen. Keep in mind we had played SFGC, Olympic, Cal Club, Meadow earlier in the week- that is high praise indeed.

Jack agreed all around. 
 
And given the nature of #7,  nothing can really be done about it, so that's a bummer.  The green site is terrific, but the tee shot is one of the most constricting I've ever seen anywhere.
 
I too agree that the experience at Pasa is terrific.  Its one of those courses that wildly exceeded my expectations,  especially with its world class back 9.  I wonder if a diagonal fairway bunker on #17 would create some interest off the tee where the player must carry the furthest part of it to have the best angle into the green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kalen,
 
I'm with Bill McBride on # 17.
 
It needs no amendments.
 
The fairway is canted high left to low right and hitting that green is no easy chore.  When the hole is cut middle to back, that's one very difficult approach and putt.
 
Jim Hoak,
 
Modern speeds have certainly impacted Pasatiempo, and not just on # 8.
# 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 16 and 18 are also challenging.
 
I wonder what the ideal green speed for that course is ?

[John Cowden]

No. 7 is driveable.  I was playing with Jason Kockrack when he did do several years ago.  Thus I suggest, perhaps, a four iron off the tee.  And the green arrangement is exceptional.  As for Doak and Urbina's changes to no. 17, play it a dozen times and you'll fully appreciate its proper place on a
[size=78%]world class back nine. [/size]

[Patrick_Mucci]

JCowden,
 
Agree on # 7 green and surrounds.
 
It's spectacular.
 
As to the narrowness, shouldn't there be at least one hole on a golf course that presents a high premium on an accurate drive ?
 
Especially on a short hole, such as # 7.

[Pete Lavallee]

Jack,

I also puzzled by your rating of 6 & 17! Just the pure fact that MacKenzies house is on6 should elevate it. If the hole was located in the tiny tounge at the very back of the green I'm sure your opinion would change. As for 17 the camouflage of the slope of that green is pure genius! From 50 yards out it appears flat but is anything but. Just ask Shivas about how difficult it is to putt; I believe it was a 5 jack for him!

[J_ Crisham]

Jack,

I also puzzled by your rating of 6 & 17! Just the pure fact that MacKenzies house is on6 should elevate it. If the hole was located in the tiny tounge at the very back of the green I'm sure your opinion would change. As for 17 the camouflage of the slope of that green is pure genius! From 50 yards out it appears flat but is anything but. Just ask Shivas about how difficult it is to putt; I believe it was a 5 jack for him!

Pete,
        The pin was far back in the right corner last Weds. My opinion is that the green is a good one but it isn't going to be confused with the brilliance of the other 17 greens. #6 is the only hole on the front nine that is just OK. As far as McK home getting bonus points I struggle with that as I do with the Ross home in Pinehurst. Too bad that Shivas 5 putted- as I recall from our match with Bob Huntley about 10 yrs ago that Pasa has been tough on him. In fact, he launched a brand new Pro V1 of mine into a backyard on the approach to #4- Bob is probably still laughing about it. We were beaten like a drum by a wily octogenarian and Ed Getka.

[Josh Tarble]

I wonder what the ideal green speed for that course is ?

That's a good question Pat.  I'm no expert on judging green speeds, but I think the day I played they were probably between 10 and 10.5.  I thought that to be an excellent speed.  Fast enough to be wary but slow enough to not be goofy golf or lose pin positions. 

[J_ Crisham]

I wonder what the ideal green speed for that course is ?

That's a good question Pat.  I'm no expert on judging green speeds, but I think the day I played they were probably between 10 and 10.5.  I thought that to be an excellent speed.  Fast enough to be wary but slow enough to not be goofy golf or lose pin positions.

Josh and Pat,
       One of my pals,architect Jay Blasi who played with us, said that optimum stimp is about 9- 9.5. Over 10 and they struggle to find enough pinnable areas. He said that in the US Am qualifier they ran 12 and it was impossible- on #8 his playing competitor putted off the green from 3 feet from the pin on the back right. It rolled all the way down in the valley in front of the green.

[Josh Tarble]

Jack,
I would believe that...as I mentioned I am terrible at judging actual speeds  and when I played I would have called the speed perfect for the greens.  At no point did we have anything silly and I felt we had some wild pin positions.  The greens there are just exceptional.

[JLahrman]

Are there any spots on those greens where you can get a good Stimp reading???

[Jim Hoak]

Maybe I just have played it on exceptionally fast days (but I have played it 10 times or so).  I have found the #8th green to be as described--a 3-foot putt running 30 feet by and of the green, the ball going up to the hole, stopping and rolling back to behind you, etc.  That is why I find that hole to be so objectionable.  Speed is ok, quirk is ok, but the rolls on that green that I have seen are just stupid.

[Michael Essig]

As to the narrowness, shouldn't there be at least one hole on a golf course that presents a high premium on an accurate drive ?
 
Especially on a short hole, such as # 7.

My thoughts exactly.  Goal #1: Hit something in your bag that finds the fairway. Penalty for being too conservative: a more demanding second shot.  What's wrong with a whole that presents that challenge?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael,


I think # 7 may be the only narrow par 4 on the golf course, and, it's a relatively short par 4 with a wonderful green and surrounds.


Requiring the golfer to hit an accurate shot off the tee on one hole, a short par 4, should not be considered a design flaw.

[Kalen Braley]

Pat,
 
I have no trouble with a precise shot requirement on the golf course from time to time, but the fundamental problem I see with #7 is its so out of character with the rest of the course.  On every other hole you have these really wide playing corridors to play thru and then abruptly on #7, the fairway is less than half wide as all the rest of the them.  Its the "out of place" feeling to it that I probably object to the most.
 
P.S.  yes I know #1 isn't exactly wide either, but remember, it was originally designed as a wide hole, but the left half was repurposed for the driving range.

[Michael Essig]

I think what Pat and I are saying is that everyone focuses on "its different," but I think the only thing that is truly different is the hole's aesthetic difference caused by the trees, and not the shot requirement.  Yes, the trees make the whole different; the trees are taller, in a row, etc.  If the trees were replaced with a more similar tree to the rest of the course, and the fairway was the exact same width, I don't think people would have the same reaction to the hole and the requirements of the tee shot.  The hole is only 346 yards, and if I remember correctly, opens a little after hitting through the chute of trees. 
I believe the tee shot on the 16th is much more difficult with the combination of the baranca, the out of bounds and the gentle dog-leg making the landing area blind.  However, because the hole feels a bit more like the rest of the course, everyone sings a different tune.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kalen,

Pasatiempo is in California, hence I wouldn't be surprised if the trees separating # 7 aren't the product of trying to reduce legal liability.

While I agree that fairway width on # 7 represents a departure from other holes, I don't see anything wrong with that.  Tom Doak did the same thing at Sebonack and it's quite effective.

I'm a big advocate of width, but I think the architect, in trying to subject the golfer to an examination of his skills, is within his artistic license in demanding accuracy off the tee on a par 4 or par 5.

I'm defending that hole despite the fact that it ruined my most recent round when I pulled my tee shot, hit trees left and ended up in the bunker on # 8 green closest to the 9th tee.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()